Chronicles of London Bridge. Richard Thompson

And now, I would first request you to remember, that King Henry III. died at London, on the 16th of November, 1272; Prince Edward his son then being in the Crusade in Palestine; whence, however, he returned to England in July, or August, 1274. Now, almost the whole of the reign of Henry III. had been disturbed by the truculent Barons contending with him for the final settlement of Magna Charta; and these Civil Wars had very naturally produced numerous abuses with respect to the Estates of England, such as the Nobility assuming almost regal rights, imposing heavy tolls, and the officers of the Crown using divers exactions under colour of the law. Such was the state of English affairs at the return of King Edward I., and it was one of the first acts of his reign—as the ‘Annals of Waverley’ tell us on page 235—to enquire into the state of the revenues, privileges, and lands of the Crown; as well as to examine into the conduct of the sheriffs and officers, who had at once defrauded the Sovereign and oppressed his subjects. For this purpose, as the next circuit of the Justices Itinerant was not expected for six years then to come—as they generally travelled it but once in seven—the King issued his Letters Patent under the Great Seal, dated from the Tower of London, on the 11th of October, 1274, appointing Commissioners for each County in England, to make this important inquisition. They were instructed to summon Juries to enquire on oath the answers to thirty-five Articles, examining into the King’s rights, royalties, and prerogatives, and into the extent of all frauds and abuses; the most full and ample instructions being given them for their conduct. The returns and answers to these enquiries constitute that interesting body of Records denominated the ‘Hundred Rolls,’ which are preserved in the Wakefield Tower, in the Tower of London: though, before we make any references to these, let me remark, that you will find their history, nature, and extent, fully described in the ‘Reports from the Select Committee, appointed to enquire into the State of the Public Records,’ 1801, folio, pages 54, 57–62; and ‘Rotuli Hundredorum Tempore Henrici III. et Edwardi I. in Turri Londinensi, et in Curiâ receptæ Scaccarii Westmonasteriensi, asservati.’ London, 1812–18, 2 volumes, folio. The original Patent Commissions, and Articles of Enquiry, are also still preserved in the Patent Rolls in the Tower, of the 2nd of Edward I., Membrane the 5th: by which we are informed, that Bartholomew de Bryaunton, and James de Saint Victoire, were appointed Inquisitors for the Counties of Kent, Surrey, Sussex, and Middlesex, and for the City of London: and that their enquiries for the latter place commenced in the 3rd year of King Edward I., 1274–75. On the first Membrane of the Roll for London it is stated, that twelve Jurors of Basinghall, or as it is often called Bassishaw Ward, gave the following evidence concerning London Bridge, for the original Latin of which see the ‘Rotuli Hundredorum,’ which I have already quoted, volume i. page 403, column 1.

      “ ‘When they enquired concerning the Rents of the Citizens and Burgesses, &c.—They said that the custody of London Bridge, which is wont to belong only to the City, is alienated by the Lady Queen, Mother of Edward our King; and the Keepers of the said Bridge appointed by the same Lady Queen, expend but little in the amending and sustaining of the said Bridge. Whence danger may easily arise, very much to the damage of the King and of the City.’ This is the second Inquisition quoted by Stow, on page 60. On the third Membrane of this same Roll, containing the inquisition made in the Ward of William de Hadestok, or Tower Ward, the Jurors said that ‘the Lady Queen Eleanor, Mother of our Lord the King, is now possessed of the Bridge of London, who keeps it badly, and that it was belonging to the City of London:’ and also that the custody had been alienated ‘from the Battle of Evesham,’ August the 4th, 1265, as I have already shewn you, until the time of the inquisition. See page 405, column 1, of the ‘Hundred Rolls’ before cited.

      “The Jurors of the Ward of Fori, or Fore-street, page 406, column 2 of the same book, and Membrane 4 of the original Roll, ‘said that London Bridge had been for a long time in the hands of the City and Citizens of London, and that such had been always accustomed by general consent, to be made keepers of the common Bridge of our Lord the King, and of his City, and of all passers over it; and now,’ they continued, ‘the aforesaid Bridge is in the hands of the Lady the Queen, and they know not by what warrant. They said also, that the same Bridge is greatly and perilously decayed through defect of keeping, which is to the great peril of our Lord the King and his City, and all passing over it.’ The evidence of the Jurors of the Ward of Walter le Poter, was to the same effect: and you will find it on Membrane 5 of the Roll, and on page 408, column 2, of the printed copy. A similar reply was also returned from the Ward of Peter Aunger, see Membrane 6, and page 410, column 1: from Coleman Street Ward, Membrane 7, page 412, column 1: and from the Ward of John de Blakethorne, Membrane 9, page 414, column 2; where, however, it is added, that ‘the Bridge of London, which was formerly in the custody of the whole Commonalty to be repaired and re-edified, is now under that of Brother Stephen de Foleborn for the Queen Mother.’

      “The verdict of the twelve Jurors of the Ward of John Horn, also testifies the Queen’s possession of London Bridge, see Membrane 11, and page 416, column 2: but from Queenhithe Ward, or that of Simon de Hadestok, Membrane 13, and page 419, column 1, we learn that the Jurors ‘said that the Lord King Henry took the Bridge of London into his own hands, presently after the Battle of Evesham, and delivered it into the hands of the Lady the Queen, Mother of the Lord the King, who hath it now; and that to the great detriment of the Bridge, and the prejudice of all the people; it is also now nearly in a falling state, through defect of support.’ On Membrane 14, and page 420, column 1, the Jurors of the Ward of John de Northampton—which is, by the way, the first Inquisition, so vaguely referred to by Stow, at page 60 of his ‘Survey,’—depose to the same effect; as do those of the Ward of Thomas de Basing, Membrane 15, and page 421, column 1; the latter adding only, that when the Bridge was held by the City, it was delivered to two honest Citizens to keep, saving the rents of their custody. The only information we gain from the Jurors of the Ward of Dowgate, Membrane 16, and page 422, column 2, is, that Brother Stephen, Bishop of Waterford, was custodier for Queen Eleanor, whilst their evidence on the Bridge dilapidations is quite as full as that of the other Wards.

      “Such were the chief answers to the inquisitions concerning London Bridge, in the reign of King Edward I.; I say the chief, for there are yet several others, which, for the most part, are but abridged repetitions of those already cited. Indeed, they are recorded upon a different Roll, which is kept in the Chapter House, at West-Minster; and you may see their contents in the printed copies of the ‘Hundred Rolls’ to which I have so often referred you, volume i. pages 425–432.”

      “Well, Master Postern,” said I, when my narrator came to this breathing place, “and how did King Edward and his Commissioners act upon this evidence against Queen Eleanor of Provence? Were they not of the mind of Dogberry as it regarded the answers of the Citizens; ‘’Fore God! they are both in a tale,’ seeing that nearly all of them swore alike?”

      “I cannot, now,” answered Mr. Postern, “call to mind any historical proof that the custody of London Bridge was immediately restored to the Mayor and Citizens, though Maitland states, at page 48 of his ‘History,’ but without quoting any authority, that the Citizens did not cease to prosecute their suit by Quo Warranto, until they regained their ancient rights and privileges. Now the fact is, it is by no means certain that there was any such suit ever commenced as it concerned the Bridge; for the inquisition was first commanded by the King, and the Citizens had only to answer concerning the ancient possession and present state of their property, part of which they stated had been alienated by the King to the Queen Mother, adding also, ‘et nesciunt quo Warranto,’ they knew not by what warrant, or right. This, probably, was the phrase which led Maitland astray; added to which, he cites at page 104 the Quo Warranto Bag of the 3rd year of Edward I. No. 4, in the Exchequer, containing the complaints of the Citizens concerning levies unjustly made.

      “It was, however, not the City of London only that presented and complained of alterations in the Bridge customs; for in Messrs. Manning and Bray’s ‘History and Antiquities of Surrey,’ London, 1804–14, folio, volume iii. page 548, there is the following entry. ‘At an Assize at Guildford, in Surrey, in the Octave of St. Michael,’—that is to say within the eight days succeeding the 29th of September—‘in the 7th of Edward I. 1278—79, before John de Reygate and other Justices Itinerant. There came twelve for the Burgesses of Southwark. They present that a certain part of London Bridge, about the great gate of the Bridge,